Not labeled correctly. With many boxes stating "Master".Which would lead one to believe that a LOT of multitracks are NOT missing .... but rather MISPLACED!
Not labeled correctly. With many boxes stating "Master".Which would lead one to believe that a LOT of multitracks are NOT missing .... but rather MISPLACED!
I think it was Brian Moura who set me straight that because of the fragility of the master tapes [not to mention their extreme value] that the majors were NO longer sending the absolute masters to the reissue companies for replication but rather digital transfers....made from those masters! And unless things have changed, that the absolute masters were kept in the country of origin. Perhaps Steelydave could shed some light on this ..... because from what D~V claims on ALL their QUAD SACDs [mastered from the original analogue masters], would SONY and other majors actually part with the masters....especially since most of them 'reside' in the USA!
edit: I would assume that ALL SONY's digital masters are DSD 256 remastered from the original analogue masters which is what MoFi and Sony Japan currently utilize to replicate their SACDs [Stereo AND multichannel, respectively].
I did not think that the quad SACD of "All American Boy" sounded like a first generation master tape.On occasion, D~V does release some spectacular sounding Stereo SACDs so I would love some Dionne Warwick two~fers, if feasible.
I did not think that the quad SACD of "All American Boy" sounded like a first generation master tape.
No, the mixdown from multitracks is the final mixed master tape. This goes from stereo or quad. The multitracks are not considered masters.If you really think about it quicksrt, the actual QUAD master is never the actual analogue master as it combines elements of the multitracks transferred to a second generation master. And unlike digital, analogue does suffer a bit from being transferred to another reel.
I'll have to listen to ALL American Boy again but if I recall, it really sounded great on my system and not having heard it in years, especially in QUAD....was a real treat 'n a half.
By that logic, any mix laid down to analog tape created from analog multitracks—regardless of format—isn't "the original master," but it is: it's the "mix master tape," as @quicksrt stated.If you really think about it quicksrt, the actual QUAD master is never the actual analogue master as it combines elements of the multitracks transferred to a second generation master.
Actually, the multitracks are also "multitrack master tapes."The multitracks are not considered masters.
...., those tapes can ONLY be baked ONCE ......
Just for the record, Audio Fidelity was in fact very transparent about what analogue Master Tapes were utilized and where they were mastered and who mastered them, and who authored the darn SACD disc as well.. MFSL state Original Master Recordings (analogue) utilized unless otherwise stated. Analogue Productions, well... look at their name, it kinda says what they use. Most if not all labels who use original analog masters tend to shout it from the rooftops, as it's a big deal to audiophiles in general, that's why they are audiophiles.hi Ralph! DV state on the rear inlay of their Surround SACD releases that they are from the original analogue tapes.. doesn't say anything anywhere about them being from digital transfers.. who can say "what it's all about Ralphie".. in any event i doubt they're going to get more transparent on what and how they get their stuff sounding so good - and why should they? other labels that did/are doing surround music didn't/don't get into specifics on such matters, i guess its all part of the trade secret special sauce/source!
Just for the record, Audio Fidelity was in fact very transparent about what analogue Master Tapes were utilized and where they were mastered and who mastered them, and who authored the darn SACD disc as well.. MFSL state Original Master Recordings (analogue) utilized unless otherwise stated. Analogue Productions, well... look at their name, it kinda says what they use. Most if not all labels who use original analog masters tend to shout it from the rooftops, as it's a big deal to audiophiles in general, that's why they are audiophiles.
Not labeled correctly. With many boxes stating "Master".
In some cases it can be as simple as the catalog number being off by a digit or two.
That is why a bit of sleuthing is sometimes needed as part of a reissue program.
Brian, you'd think in the interest of "Good Housekeeping" and the fact that these legacy tapes could potentially be worth millions that the majors would hire some keen eared apprentices with a vast knowledge of music to sort through this quagmire of tape boxes and attempt to put them in some sort of order. Probably easier said than done but the real shame is the life expectancy of these tapes is hardly infinite and once they disintegrate .......
So DSD was initially created for the industry - not the public?
Personally, I couldn't care less whether original tapes are used or mixdown masters or DSD or whatever... as long as I think it sounds good. Add to it that the DV discs are a complete BARGAIN and it's win win regardless. Add to that every disc I have received form DVD has sounded superb. So even if they used a 7 1/2 ips (which I have seen for sale other places - not DV) and they sound as good as they do and i still wouldn't carei'm sorry that when Dutton Vocalion say they are using "original analogue tapes" that is not good enough for you. tbh i don't remember DV touting their stuff as "Audiophile".. maybe you do. really, i wish we could get back on topic. this must be getting irksome for people getting alerts to this thread about suggestions for new DV titles and all they see is wittering on about provenance. here's a friendly suggestion in this suggestion thread; if you feel so strongly about DV's sources etc., why not start a separate thread.
Just to be clear, when most people say "original tapes" or "original masters," they're referring to the "mix(down) masters."...original tapes are used or mixdown masters...
Yes really.Really?